Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/08/22/13:31:15
According to Kbwms AT aol DOT com:
> In a recent communication with Eli Zaretskii, the problem of raising
> arithmetic exceptions, as described in C99, arose. His latest thoughts are appended
> to this email as a postscript. Paragraph F.9 of C99 is attached to this email
> for those who do not have C99 on their system.
Is that from the real C99 or from the draft you refer to below as C99?
> In C99, functions nearbyint are specifically prohibited from endangering the
> setting of the inexact exception. I am not aware of any other functions where
> a similar restriction exists. So, what do we do about exceptions? Except
I think they specifically point out that because if you round you are
making the result inexact (so a inexact exception is plausible), but
as you are asking for rounding you should not get that exception in
this case.
> For those who have been pining for a copy of C99, here is a link:
>
> <A HREF="http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/ ">http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/</A>
That isn't C99. That's a draft. According to comp.std.c real changes
were made after that draft. You shouldn't advertise it as C99. (But
it's the best that is freely available.)
> In a message dated 8/21/2003 9:57:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il writes:
> > The main issue, as far as I'm concerned, is this: when C99 says
> > ``raises such-and-such exception'', does that mean that we need to
> > actually trigger a SIGFPE, or merely that the appropriate bit in
> > fexcept_t should be set?
It sure sounds like SIGFPE should be triggered. How is setting a bit
somewhere "raising an exception"?
Right,
MartinS
- Raw text -